October 26, 2003

Terrorism is Third World War With New Tactics

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rattled media cages with a provocative memorandum to his top four subordinates by asking a pertinent question:

"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?"

Democrats, Europeans and mega news outlets swooned with delight. Here, they posit, is acknowledgment by the Bush administration that all is lost.

Before joining critics in a semantic quagmire, consider the memo in detail.

Rumsfeld’s next sentences are profound: "Is DoD (Department of Defense) changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG (U.S. Government departments) changing fast enough?"

Political partisans – foreign and domestic – skip past the deep, philosophical questions to focus on perceived problems that suggest failures. To wit:

• "We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them. Nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
• "USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
• "USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban – Omar (Bin Laden’s personal mullah), Hekmatyar (powerful Afghan warloard), etc.
• "With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam (principal terrorist group in Iraq), we are just getting started.
• "Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the U.S.?
• "Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
• "Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental?"

Rumsfeld then answers his own questions: "My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves. We have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?"

Then, the secretary pushed the Chicken Little button: "It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."

The chattering class pounced. "Slog?" Doom! Gloom! Body bags! Viet Nam! Bankruptcy! Defeat!

Rumsfeld, toting a dictionary, interrupted a routine Pentagon press briefing last Thursday to defend his candor. Reading from the dictionary, he cited the definition of "slog" as: "to hit or strike hard, to drive with blows, to assail violently."

A reporter cited a second description of  "slog" as: "to walk or progress with a slow, heavy pace, plod."

Rumsfeld flashed his mischievous, patented grin. "I’ve seen that one. I read the one I liked."

That’s why the press like "Rummy" – even those scribbling for the New York Times and Washington Post. He is wise, upbeat and witty. May his tribe increase.

Peripatetic Democrat candidates, and "Old Bull" senators, are hollering down a dry well.

New wars are fought with tactics of the last war. We learned in the Gulf War, for example, that high technology will overwhelm massed defenders.

What no one, no where, no how could anticipate was the effectiveness of terrorism. Religious fanatics are eager to die. Tyrants don’t hesitate to slaughter their own citizens. Gangsters brutally liquidate those who resist extortion.

It took the United States five years and many billions of dollars after World War II to rebuild Germany and Japan -- and guide them to a U.S.-style constitution. We are still there today with 80,000 troops.

And don’t forget Korea where we linger with 37,000 soldiers.

So much for pre-war exit strategies. Anyone who will predict the course of wars will lie about other things also. Accidents happen. Enemies are unpredictable.  

It could take twice as long and be twice as costly to win the War on Terrorism. Call it World War III inasmuch as it involves every nation in the world.

Give up the malarkey about quick victory and easy exit strategy. It never was and never will be.

Just be thankful that Bush and Rumsfeld are learning how to end this war successfully – eventually – for homeland security, universal freedom and for setting rules for the next war.

If not the United States, who? If not now, when?

 PARTING SHOTS

Bin Laden is reported to be grooming his eldest son to take over Al Queda. "Someday, my son, all this cave will be yours."

* * *

Condoleezza Rice is criticized for describing President Bush’s stop in Japan as a "lay over" during his six-nation Asian trip. Why? Layovers are something you do with best friends.

 * * *

No man has ever been shot doing the dishes.

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers